Who Says Diets Don’t Work: Effect of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss, maintenance and cardiometabolic risk: A randomized 1-year trial 

This research report would probably be interesting to dissect, if you have an extra $36 dollars laying around. Note that calories count, after all. Quotes:

Highlights

•Intermittent and continuous energy restriction resulted in similar weight loss after one year in men and women with obesity.

•Both diets improved cardiovascular risk factors.

•Feeling of hunger may limit long-term adherence to intermittent energy restriction.

Abstract

Background & aims

Long-term adherence to conventional weight-loss diets is limited while intermittent fasting has risen in popularity. We compared the effects of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss, maintenance and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with abdominal obesity and ≥1 additional component of metabolic syndrome.

Methods & results

In total 112 participants (men [50%] and women [50%]) aged 21–70 years with BMI 30–45 kg/m2 (mean 35.2 [SD 3.7]) were randomized to intermittent or continuous energy restriction. A 6-month weight-loss phase including 10 visits with dieticians was followed by a 6-month maintenance phase without additional face-to-face counselling. The intermittent energy restriction group was advised to consume 400/600 kcal (female/male) on two non-consecutive days [per week, presumably]. Based on dietary records both groups reduced energy intake by ∼26–28%. Weight loss was similar among participants in the intermittent and continuous energy restriction groups (8.0 kg [SD 6.5] versus 9.0 kg [SD 7.1]; p = 0.6). There were favorable improvements in waist circumference, blood pressure, triglycerides and HDL-cholesterol with no difference between groups. Weight regain was minimal and similar between the intermittent and continuous energy restriction groups (1.1 kg [SD 3.8] versus 0.4 kg [SD 4.0]; p = 0.6). Intermittent restriction participants reported higher hunger scores than continuous restriction participants on a subjective numeric rating scale (4.7 [SD 2.2] vs 3.6 [SD 2.2]; p = 0.002).

Source: Effect of intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss, maintenance and cardiometabolic risk: A randomized 1-year trial – Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s